Isles toll Nabakov

[Dado]

In the 30 days leading up to his attempt to re-enter the NHL, he and his agent had witnessed two players trying to jump from Europe to the NHL only to be snapped on the waiver wire...

If it were me, I'd be stapling the agent's ears to the floor, too.

But it doesn't matter - much like hitting and obliterating a guy in a vulnerable position - just because you *can* make a hit, doesn't make it right to do so.

 

[AllByDesign]

If it were me, I'd be stapling the agent's ears to the floor, too.

But it doesn't matter - much like hitting and obliterating a guy in a vulnerable position - just because you *can* make a hit, doesn't make it right to do so.

You, see I don't think that the Islanders are doing it just because "They Can". They signed him because the legimately wanted the guy on their team. Since they had obtained "property" with their transaction, it is in their best interest to do whatever benefits the club. Frankly I don't think the "player" has anything to do with the decision.

If Nabokov wants to refuse to play again, the team will trade him. They would have traded him last year if they had the ability to. The only way they can benefit their team is by tolling the contract, and then moving the player.

 

[mouser]

I think it's a pretty safe bet he'll be traded. And given Nabby's NMC it will probably be for something like a 4th or 5th round pick is my guess.

 

[pegcity]

They could really punish Nabokov and trade him to Winnipeg, who will need a goalie.

I wonder which would be the least desirable team to play for the Islanders or a Winnipeg based team?

 

[Jumptheshark]

people assume that the NYI can keep his rights after july 1st--if he was a RFA they could--but because he was signed as a UFA and it was not a complete season contract--it falls into a grey area under the cba

 

[mouser]

people assume that the NYI can keep his rights after july 1st--if he was a RFA they could--but because he was signed as a UFA and it was not a complete season contract--it falls into a grey area under the cba

All standard NHL contracts are for complete seasons. The player's actual compensation will be effectively pro-rated if they sign mid-season, but there's no such thing as an NHL contract for a partial season.

 

[kdb209]

people assume that the NYI can keep his rights after july 1st--if he was a RFA they could--but because he was signed as a UFA and it was not a complete season contract--it falls into a grey area under the cba

It is not really much of a grey area.

There is no such thing as "not a complete season contract". By definition, all SPCs are for entire League Years, with salary prorated based on the number of days on a roster.

This case (and the Yashin decision before) is not based on the CBA - the CBA is silent on the matter of specific performance. This case, however is covered in the League Rules (Constitution, By-Laws, previous League rulings, etc) - which are implicitly included in the CBA.

The ruling from the Zeigler/Stein era, which was the basis for the Yashin decision, would hold here. The hypothetical question was asked - what would happen if a pending UFA sat out for all or part of a season? The League ruled that that player's SPC would be extended by a year and the player would not become a UFA.

Since the current CBA is still silent on specific performance, it is very likely that an arbiter would rule the same as Lawrence Holden did in the Yashin decision.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/tmr/comments/nabokov_islanders_agree...for_now/

Appears to be that Nabby accepts tolling in exchange for playing in World Championships. Most likely traded this summer.

 

[Killion]

Why does it not surprise me that Garth Snow & the Islanders' are in this mess over yet another goaltenders contract?. Whoever heard of this before, "Toll the Goalie"?. Is that like "Belling the Cat" or what?.. Absolutely archaic'. Reminds me of Pieter Breugel the Elders' late 14th Century painting Netherlandish Proverbs, depicting a Topsy-Turvy World in which Charles Wang would feel right at home.

 

[Flyboy34]

If Nabby would have dressed and played in one game for the Isles, and then refused to suit up the rest of the way, would the contract have be considered fulfilled?

 

[dbr2]

Well I guess Flyers could always take a stab at him. Why not?

 

[Dooman]

If Nabby would have dressed and played in one game for the Isles, and then refused to suit up the rest of the way, would the contract have be considered fulfilled?

No, that would still be failure to report, and it would be the same outcome.

 

[KevFu]

Let the longstanding tradition of inept management in New York continue.

Seriously? Claiming a guy on waivers is inept?

This is a dreadful way to take advantage of a CBA quirk to screw over a player who long since paid his dues.

A contemptuous act by a classless organization.

That's completely and totally insane.

The Islanders have a lack of talent on their roster. There's a talented player on waivers they can acquire for free. How is it classless to take a player on waivers?

How is it screwing over a player? The player lost his ability to choose his team by leaving the NHL and signing overseas. If anything he screwed himself.

If anything, it's classless on HIS part for not reporting.

Alternate interpretation: It's an uncompetitive attempt to dictate where legitimate free agents can play without their consent and the Islanders are now trying to screw a guy over for daring to say he won't play for a team he never signed a contract with

Again, he lost the ability to choose which team he plays for when he signed overseas. DOZENS of players are playing for someone they didn't sign a contract with. Every single guy who was traded, for example.

Why does it not surprise me that Garth Snow & the Islanders' are in this mess over yet another goaltenders contract?. Whoever heard of this before, "Toll the Goalie"?. Is that like "Belling the Cat" or what?.. Absolutely archaic'. Reminds me of Pieter Breugel the Elders' late 14th Century painting Netherlandish Proverbs, depicting a Topsy-Turvy World in which Charles Wang would feel right at home.

If claiming a player on waivers was so archaic, why have 23 of 30 teams acquired someone via a waiver claim in the last two seasons?

The only difference was that the other 30 or 40 players claimed on waivers actually reported to their teams and played. Maybe because they don't have a sense of entitlement from somewhere and understand that rules are rules.